70% of Tea Partiers Don't Want to Cut Medicare Either

[Catawba]

A new poll shows there is strong opposition to the GOP budget proposal to cut Medicare. 80% opposition among registered voters, and much more surprising, 70% opposition from Tea Party supporters.

"The Tea Party movement is supposed to be the engine driving Republicans' push for sharp cuts to spending and reform entitlements. Representative Paul Ryan's 2012 budget, which passed the House last week, phases out Medicare for people under 55 and turns Medicaid into block grants. But it turns out that Tea Partiers, like most Americans, strongly oppose cutting Medicare and Medicaid. A new McClatchy-Marist poll shows 70 percent of "Tea Party supporters" oppose cutting those programs--and 80 percent of registered voters agree.

So though The New Republic's Jonathan Chait has argued that "the Ryan budget represents the victory of the Tea Party mentality over mainstream conservatism within the Republican Party," it looks like Ryan's plan doesn't represent the activists, either. Slate's Dave Weigel calls the Marist poll a "nice present" for Democrats, and "pretty ugly numbers" for Republicans. He adds: "If Democrats can keep portraying the cuts as worse than they are--this was done successfully in the 2005 Social Security fight--there's a win here." For another articulation of this view, recall that even when House Republicans passed Ryan's budget Friday, NBC News' Mark Murray marveled at their political gambit: "Either the normal rules of American politics have changed, or Republicans have walked into an electoral buzz saw--on a Medicare plan that won't pass the 112th Congress and that many of them didn't campaign on in 2010."
70% of Tea Partiers Don't Want to Cut Medicare Either - Yahoo! News

Do you think the GOP will throw Ryan's budget proposal under the bus in the face of this overwhelming opposition?

 

[cpwill]

A new poll shows there is strong opposition to the GOP budget proposal to cut Medicare. 80% opposition among registered voters, and much more surprising, 70% opposition from Tea Party supporters.

"The Tea Party movement is supposed to be the engine driving Republicans' push for sharp cuts to spending and reform entitlements. Representative Paul Ryan's 2012 budget, which passed the House last week, phases out Medicare for people under 55 and turns Medicaid into block grants. But it turns out that Tea Partiers, like most Americans, strongly oppose cutting Medicare and Medicaid. A new McClatchy-Marist poll shows 70 percent of "Tea Party supporters" oppose cutting those programs--and 80 percent of registered voters agree.

So though The New Republic's Jonathan Chait has argued that "the Ryan budget represents the victory of the Tea Party mentality over mainstream conservatism within the Republican Party," it looks like Ryan's plan doesn't represent the activists, either. Slate's Dave Weigel calls the Marist poll a "nice present" for Democrats, and "pretty ugly numbers" for Republicans. He adds: "If Democrats can keep portraying the cuts as worse than they are--this was done successfully in the 2005 Social Security fight--there's a win here." For another articulation of this view, recall that even when House Republicans passed Ryan's budget Friday, NBC News' Mark Murray marveled at their political gambit: "Either the normal rules of American politics have changed, or Republicans have walked into an electoral buzz saw--on a Medicare plan that won't pass the 112th Congress and that many of them didn't campaign on in 2010."
70% of Tea Partiers Don't Want to Cut Medicare Either - Yahoo! News

actually this isn't new polling - it's old. If you will look at the poll data from the latest USA Today / Gallop poll that I posted here, you will note that the field appears to be shifting rapidly. two-thirds of Americans agree that the entitlements face a crises in the next ten years, and a plurality of people above the age of 30 (even seniors) prefer the Ryan plan to the Presidents.

Do you think the GOP will throw Ryan's budget proposal under the bus in the face of this overwhelming opposition?

Democrats are even less likely to support reducing medicare expenditures - do you see them throwing the President under the bus over his intentions to cut Medicare?

 

[Catawba]

actually this isn't new polling - it's old. If you will look at the poll data from the latest USA Today / Gallop poll that I posted here, you will note that the field appears to be shifting rapidly. two-thirds of Americans agree that the entitlements face a crises in the next ten years, and a plurality of people above the age of 30 (even seniors) prefer the Ryan plan to the Presidents.

It doesn't even look to me like Ryan's own constituents are in favor of cutting medicare:





Democrats are even less likely to support reducing medicare expenditures - do you see them throwing the President under the bus over his intentions to cut Medicare?

You mean his savings by putting the Avantage care back under the government administration where it can be run more cheaply than through the private companies? Why would anyone oppose cutting wasteful spending and keep the same benefits?

 

[cpwill]

It doesn't even look to me like Ryan's own constituents are in favor of cutting medicare

then Ryan has a distinct advantage over the President - Ryan doesn't start to effect Medicare until 2022, and then only for those currently under the age of 55. the President's plan starts to effect (cut) Medicare expenditures in 2014, and will effect current retirees.

which, i suppose, is one (of the many) reason why the Ryan plan is polling better than the Presidents' plan .

You mean his savings by putting the Avantage care back under the government administration where it can be run more cheaply than through the private companies?

no, I"m talking about the IPAB and the "well we'll just ration care" solution. Although throwing seniors off of a popular Medicare plan that came in at 40% under estimates is a good way to tick people off while demonstrating a tin ear to considerations of efficiency.

Why would anyone oppose cutting wasteful spending and keep the same benefits?

well you tell me, that is precisely what the 2012 House Budget achieves with taxes (same revenues, but cuts waste); why do you oppose it?

 

[lpast]

Ryans plan is absurd as long as its a ploy to cut taxs for the rich and corporations and thats what it is a disguise to cut taxs for the rich.
Corporations pay little to no taxs now..and ge proves that. People that make 10million plus a year wont die in the street if they dont get another 10% tax cut...Ryan wants to take and take a BUNCH from the middle class while giving it to the rich.
No one can sell me ryans plan, until the tax cuts are out of it and he includes ending some tax deductions that allow the wealthy an corporations to pay almost nothing anyway.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

You mean his savings by putting the Avantage care back under the government administration where it can be run more cheaply than through the private companies? Why would anyone oppose cutting wasteful spending and keep the same benefits?

Why are you perpetuating this?
The ObamaCare plan cut payments to Medicare advantage plans, it didn't eliminate the plans.
We already went over this in another thread, you really sound like a broken record.

 

[haymarket]

from cpwill

actually this isn't new polling - it's old.

April 18, 2011...... ten days is old?!?!?!?!?!?!!? that is really an amazing statement in a weak attempt to pretend that this poll is not as damaging to the right wing agenda as it is.

 

[cpwill]

April 18, 2011...... ten days is old?

yes. as in: having been superceded by new data that has been collected and come out in the meantime.

that is really an amazing statement in a weak attempt to pretend that this poll is not as damaging to the right wing agenda as it is.

if this is so damaging to Republicans that the Ryan plan is still outpolling the Obama plan among seniors (albiet not by much) and has a plurality of the population over 30....

well then I suppose I'll just have to take that.

 

[haymarket]

yes. as in: having been superceded by new data that has been collected and come out in the meantime.



if this is so damaging to Republicans that the Ryan plan is still outpolling the Obama plan among seniors (albiet not by much) and has a plurality of the population over 30....

well then I suppose I'll just have to take that.

It has not been SUPERCEDED by anything. This is a transparent attempt by you to dismiss poll numbers that you do not like in favor of poll numbers that you do like.

 

[gekaap]

Corporations pay little to no taxs now..and ge proves that.

It is a failing of logic and critical thinking to make a wide sweeping claim, and posit your position on a singular example that is not necessarily a representative sample.

 

[gekaap]

yes. as in: having been superceded by new data that has been collected and come out in the meantime.

Care to produce this data?

 

[Catawba]

then Ryan has a distinct advantage over the President - Ryan doesn't start to effect Medicare until 2022, and then only for those currently under the age of 55. the President's plan starts to effect (cut) Medicare expenditures in 2014, and will effect current retirees.

Cutting waste as the administration plan does is preferable to the middle class than is privatized system by the GOP that throws our elederly to the wolves as the 4/18 poll I posted shows. 80 % of the registered voters are opposed, and 70% of the tea party supporters are opposed to cutting Medicare.

no, I"m talking about the IPAB and the "well we'll just ration care" solution.

Do you mean the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which has the explicit task of reducing the rate of growth in Medicare without affecting coverage or quality."
Independent Payment Advisory Board - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

well you tell me, that is precisely what the 2012 House Budget achieves with taxes (same revenues, but cuts waste); why do you oppose it?

As I have shown previously, the GOP plan through their tax cuts to the rich proposed would reduce revenues by $4.7 trillion over the next 10 years.

 

[Catawba]

Why are you perpetuating this?

Because I'm a big believer in truth :sun

"Health insurance reform will improve the quality of care in Medicare, reduce costs for seniors,
and make sure Medicare is there for them in the future. Unfortunately, many seniors have heard
misinformation regarding health insurance reform. This report sets the record straight.

How will reducing subsidies to Medicare Advantage plans affect me?

Problem with the Status Quo:

The government is overpaying private insurance companies. Part of the recent rise in Medicare
costs – and in premiums for seniors – stems from extra subsidies to private insurance companies.
Medicare Advantage is part of the Medicare program that allows beneficiaries to receive services via
private plans. Policy changes, particularly in 2003, ratcheted up payment levels to private plans. The
federal government pays private insurance companies on average 14 percent more for providing coverage
to Medicare Advantage beneficiaries than it would pay for the same beneficiary in the traditional
Medicare program. This overpayment is as high as 20 percent in certain parts of the country.1

The overpayments do not QHFHVVDULO\?improve quality. There is no evidence that this extra
payment leads to better quality for Medicare beneficiaries.2 Insurers, not seniors or the Medicare
program, determine how these overpayments are used – and this includes marketing, profits, and
other administraive costs.3 This means that seniors do not always get the full overpayments back in the
form of extra benefits or improved quality care. In fact, because Medicare Advantage plans have
flexibility to determine their own cost-sharing arrangements, seniors can end up spending more
out-of-pocket under a Medicare Advantage plan, not less.4,5

Private plans contend that low-income and minority Medicare beneficiaries disproportionately rely
on Medicare Advantage for benefits and that eliminating the overpayments would hurt them. In
fact, most low-income, minority seniors obtain additional coverage through Medicaid, not Medicare
Advantage. These “dual eligible” beneficiaries receive cost-sharing protection and extra benefits
through the Medicaid program."
Powered by Google Docs

 

[cpwill]

It has not been SUPERCEDED by anything. This is a transparent attempt by you to dismiss poll numbers that you do not like in favor of poll numbers that you do like.

:shrug: i'm not saying that they are immaterial - i'm saying they are superceded by something more relevant.

 

[cpwill]

Care to produce this data?

the thread is called "Ryan plan outpolls Obamas among seniors", and it predates this one.

 

[cpwill]

Cutting waste as the administration plan does is preferable to the middle class than is privatized system by the GOP that throws our elederly to the wolves as the 4/18 poll I posted shows.

actually the Presidents plan underpolls the Ryan plan. that's why I said that your poll had been superceded by more relevant data - because your poll tends towards inaccurate conclusions. in fact it seems the position of the American people is more complex than your OP demonstrated. Mind you, when I saw the poll you posted I came to the same conclusion you did - the Ryan plan was in deep trouble. that's why I started a thread on it.... over a week ago.

80 % of the registered voters are opposed, and 70% of the tea party supporters are opposed to cutting Medicare.

and yet two-thirds recognize that Medicare faces a crises within ten years and a plurality are willing to support the Ryan plan for reducing expenditures. I guess Americans are better at making hard choices than their president.

Do you mean the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which has the explicit task of reducing the rate of growth in Medicare without affecting coverage or quality."

yup. the IPAB serves to ration care that it deems to be unworthy of the costs, and then impose that as a one-size-fits-all solution on American retirees. So, for example, there is a treatment that only 24% of people really respond to, but your doctor has a list of reasons why you are an extremely likely candidate to be in that 24%, the IPAB will tell you to go F yourself, and you will be free to pay out of pocket or forgo treatment. You may want to read up on the history of N.I.C.E. in Britain to see how such a system functions in action.

As I have shown previously, the GOP plan through their tax cuts to the rich proposed would reduce revenues by $4.7 trillion over the next 10 years.

awesome - guide me to that because the CBO will be very interested to hear that they so utterly failed in their scoring.

 

[haymarket]

ou righties really need to take this Ryan plan and trumpet to the high heaves gettingall the attention and publicity you can possibly garner.

And cp - really now - trying to pretend that two polls in the same month and one supercedes the other becuase it may have been afew days later --- now that is really hard to take.

 

[haymarket]

What we need is to cut through the BS and poll some very direct questions?

1- are you willing to cut tax rates on the most wealthy Americans while reducing government programs that benefit you?
2- are you willing to cut corporate taxes while reducing government programs that benefit you?

Run those numbers and see what you get.

I am willing to bet that less than 5% of the American public has anything more than a minimalist passing knowledge of what makes up Ryans plan. As such, and measuring of how Americans feel about it is meaningless.

 

[cpwill]

ou righties really need to take this Ryan plan and trumpet to the high heaves gettingall the attention and publicity you can possibly garner.

And cp - really now - trying to pretend that two polls in the same month and one supercedes the other becuase it may have been afew days later --- now that is really hard to take.

If I were to post a poll saying that the majority of Americans disapprove of Obama's foriegn policy performance, but that a majority of them "absolutely" intended to vote for him in 2012; which one do you think would be more pertinent for the upcoming election cycle?

 

[haymarket]

If I were to post a poll saying that the majority of Americans disapprove of Obama's foriegn policy performance, but that a majority of them "absolutely" intended to vote for him in 2012; which one do you think would be more pertinent for the upcoming election cycle?

If you could provide links to those polls I will be glad to read them and get back to you on that.

from slate.com on Ryan

The two Republican proposals for future spending are devastating. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's plan was met with accolades by the chattering class, merely because he at first blush appeared to confront serious issues. But Ryan's plan is a disaster: It raises no revenue, relying exclusively on draconian cuts to close the deficit gap; sets a threshold for federal spending at 19 percent of GDP, thus ensuring massive underinvestment in key areas; ignores the politically risky issue of Social Security altogether; barely takes a nick out of defense spending; claims falsely to save $1.4 trillion by eliminating health care reform; and cuts Medicaid—health care for the poor—by close to $1 trillion, in a way that will guarantee that tens of millions of the poor lose health coverage. And yet with all this and the use of impossible economic forecasts—unemployment will be at 3.5 percent by 2015?—he will not balance the budget until 2040! Summed up: Fully two-thirds of Ryan's cuts fall on the poorest Americans at the same moment the wealthiest get a tax cut.

Please, give this plan all the publicity we can muster.

 

[Catawba]

actually the Presidents plan underpolls the Ryan plan. that's why I said that your poll had been superceded by more relevant data - because your poll tends towards inaccurate conclusions. in fact it seems the position of the American people is more complex than your OP demonstrated. Mind you, when I saw the poll you posted I came to the same conclusion you did - the Ryan plan was in deep trouble. that's why I started a thread on it.... over a week ago.
and yet two-thirds recognize that Medicare faces a crises within ten years and a plurality are willing to support the Ryan plan for reducing expenditures. I guess Americans are better at making hard choices than their president.
yup. the IPAB serves to ration care that it deems to be unworthy of the costs, and then impose that as a one-size-fits-all solution on American retirees. So, for example, there is a treatment that only 24% of people really respond to, but your doctor has a list of reasons why you are an extremely likely candidate to be in that 24%, the IPAB will tell you to go F yourself, and you will be free to pay out of pocket or forgo treatment. You may want to read up on the history of N.I.C.E. in Britain to see how such a system functions in action.
awesome - guide me to that because the CBO will be very interested to hear that they so utterly failed in their scoring.

"Paul Ryan's budget leaves Defense off the Table and seeks to cut Social Security, Departmental spending and Medicaid with no attention to increasing revenues by cutting the tax breaks for the rich."

"12.79% of the Federal budget is for Medicare which provides seniors their healthcare. Cutting this essentially makes people over 65 and those who are sick and disabled expendable. Its Grandma's death panel in spades. Ryan wants to just get rid of Medicare and have the States take responsibility for it with vouchers. If your state decides to cut the vouchers tough luck."

"Ryan's roadmap to America's future removes rather than ensures universal access to Health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security."

"On April 1, 2009, Ryan introduced his alternative to the 2010 United States federal budget. This proposed alternative would have eliminated the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, lowered the top tax rate to 25%, introduced an 8.5% value-added consumption tax, and imposed a five-year spending freeze on all discretionary spending.[16] It would also have replaced the Medicare system.[17] Instead, it proposed that starting in 2021, the federal government would pay part of the cost of private medical insurance for individuals turning 65.[17] Ryan's proposed budget would also have allowed taxpayers to opt out of the federal income taxation system with itemized deductions, and instead pay a flat 10 percent of adjusted gross income up to $100,000 and 25 percent on any remaining income.[18] Ryan's proposed budget was heavily criticized by opponents for the lack of concrete numbers.[19] It was ultimately rejected in the house by a vote of 293-137, with 38 Republicans in opposition.[20]"

"In late January 2010, Ryan released a new version of his "Roadmap."[21] It would give across the board tax cuts by reducing income tax rates; eliminating income taxes on capital gains, dividends, and interest; and abolishing the corporate income tax, the estate tax, and the alternative minimum tax. The plan would privatize a portion of Social Security,[22][23] eliminate the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance,[23] and end traditional Medicare and most of Medicaid.[22][23] The plan would replace these health programs with a system of vouchers whose value would decrease over time.[23]"

"In response to Krugman, economist and former American Enterprise Institute scholar Ted Gayer was more positive toward the Ryan plan. Gayer agreed that, as written, the plan would cause a $4 trillion revenue shortfall over 10 years. He noted, however, that Ryan had expressed a willingness to consider raising the rates in his tax plan. Gayer concluded that "Ryan’s vision of broad-based tax reform, which essentially would shift us toward a consumption tax, ... makes a useful contribution to this debate."[25]

Ryan's idea of tax reform is a little bit like the proposal to defund the IRS. As

Daily Kos: Paul Ryan's if you ain't got nothing you got nothing to lose Budget Cuts

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Because I'm a big believer in truth :sun

"Health insurance reform will improve the quality of care in Medicare, reduce costs for seniors,
and make sure Medicare is there for them in the future. Unfortunately, many seniors have heard
misinformation regarding health insurance reform. This report sets the record straight.

How will reducing subsidies to Medicare Advantage plans affect me?

Problem with the Status Quo:

The government is overpaying private insurance companies. Part of the recent rise in Medicare
costs – and in premiums for seniors – stems from extra subsidies to private insurance companies.
Medicare Advantage is part of the Medicare program that allows beneficiaries to receive services via
private plans. Policy changes, particularly in 2003, ratcheted up payment levels to private plans. The
federal government pays private insurance companies on average 14 percent more for providing coverage
to Medicare Advantage beneficiaries than it would pay for the same beneficiary in the traditional
Medicare program. This overpayment is as high as 20 percent in certain parts of the country.1

The overpayments do not QHFHVVDULO\?improve quality. There is no evidence that this extra
payment leads to better quality for Medicare beneficiaries.2 Insurers, not seniors or the Medicare
program, determine how these overpayments are used – and this includes marketing, profits, and
other administraive costs.3 This means that seniors do not always get the full overpayments back in the
form of extra benefits or improved quality care. In fact, because Medicare Advantage plans have
flexibility to determine their own cost-sharing arrangements, seniors can end up spending more
out-of-pocket under a Medicare Advantage plan, not less.4,5

Private plans contend that low-income and minority Medicare beneficiaries disproportionately rely
on Medicare Advantage for benefits and that eliminating the overpayments would hurt them. In
fact, most low-income, minority seniors obtain additional coverage through Medicaid, not Medicare
Advantage. These “dual eligible” beneficiaries receive cost-sharing protection and extra benefits
through the Medicaid program."
Powered by Google Docs

And how does that equate to eliminating the medicare advantage plans?

 

[Catawba]

And how does that equate to eliminating the medicare advantage plans?

It doesn't, as was described, "The government is overpaying private insurance companies. Part of the recent rise in Medicare
costs – and in premiums for seniors – stems from extra subsidies to private insurance companies.
Medicare Advantage is part of the Medicare program that allows beneficiaries to receive services via
private plans. Policy changes, particularly in 2003, ratcheted up payment levels to private plans. The
federal government pays private insurance companies on average 14 percent more for providing coverage
to Medicare Advantage beneficiaries than it would pay for the same beneficiary in the traditional
Medicare program. This overpayment is as high as 20 percent in certain parts of the country."

The savings to medicare would be realized in the reform by eliminating the overpayments to private insurers (indicated in bold above).

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

It doesn't, as was described, "The government is overpaying private insurance companies. Part of the recent rise in Medicare
costs – and in premiums for seniors – stems from extra subsidies to private insurance companies.
Medicare Advantage is part of the Medicare program that allows beneficiaries to receive services via
private plans. Policy changes, particularly in 2003, ratcheted up payment levels to private plans. The
federal government pays private insurance companies on average 14 percent more for providing coverage
to Medicare Advantage beneficiaries than it would pay for the same beneficiary in the traditional
Medicare program. This overpayment is as high as 20 percent in certain parts of the country."

The savings to medicare would be realized in the reform by eliminating the overpayments to private insurers (indicated in bold above).

Then why did you say this?

You mean his savings by putting the Avantage care back under the government administration where it can be run more cheaply than through the private companies? Why would anyone oppose cutting wasteful spending and keep the same benefits?

Medicare Advantage is not being eliminated, yet you said that it was.

 

[Catawba]

Then why did you say this?

Medicare Advantage is not being eliminated, yet you said that it was.

What I meant was they were eliminating the overpayment to private companies. Are you opposed to cutting waste from government programs?